IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

(Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction)

APPELLATE SIDE

Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Krishna Rao

W.P.A. No. 26283 of 2026

Mahesh Kumar Kejriwal

Vs

Union of India and Others

Mr. Ayan Bhattacharjee, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Indrajit Adhikari

Mr. Arpit Choudhury

Mr. Santanu Karmakar

Mr. Moumita Bhattacharya

....For the petitioner.

Mr. Arijit Chakraborty

Mr. Debsoumya Basak

Mr. Ankit Khanna

Ms. Swati Kumari Singh

Mr. Mohd. Shahid

….For the Enforcement Directorate.

Hearing Concluded On : 24.09.2026

Judgment Delivered On : 30.09.2026

Judgment Uploaded On : 30.09.2026

2

Krishna Rao, J.:

1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying for a

mandamus restraining the respondent authorities for taking any

further investigation in ML Case No. 11 of 2022 arising out of ECIR No.

KLZO/05/2020 dated 13

th February, 2020, under Sections 3/4 of the

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, pending before the Learned

Court of Special Judge, CBI and ED Court No.4, Calcutta.

2. On 30

th

March, 2013, the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter

referred to as “CBI”) has registered a case against the petitioner, his

wife and his son for the alleged offences under Section 120B/420/471

of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) and

Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption

Act, 1988. On completion of investigation, the CBI submitted charge

sheet against the petitioner and others.

3. On 13

th February, 2020, the respondent no. 2 had registered an

Enforcement Case Information Report (hereinafter referred to as

“ECIR”) being No. ECIR No. KLZO/05/2020 dated 13

th February, 2020,

against the petitioner and his family members by treating the charge

sheet submitted by the CBI as the scheduled offence. During pendency

of investigation, the Joint Director of the Respondent no. 2 had passed

a Provisional Attachment Order (hereinafter referred to as “PAO”) on

31

st

March, 2022 wherein the movable and immovable properties

belonging to the petitioner were attached as per the provisions of

3

Section 5(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002

(hereinafter referred to as “PMLA”).

4. On 20

th April, 2022, the respondent no. 2 had filed a complaint vide

Original Complaint No. 1693 of 2022 before the Adjudicating Authority,

New Delhi under Section 8 of the PMLA for confirmation of the PAO

dated 31

st

March, 2022. The Adjudicating Officer has issued a Show

Cause Notice dated 5

th

May, 2022 to the petitioner and others under

Section 8(1) of the PMLA.

5. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Adjudicating

Authority, M/s Shree Hanuman Cotton Mills Ltd., M/s Welcast India

Pvt. Ltd., Ramesh Kejriwal and Ankit Kejriwal filed a writ petition before

this Court being WPA No. 17513 of 2022 challenging the order dated

31

st March, 2022 and the show cause notice dated 5

th May, 2022. As

the petitioner was not arrayed as party in the said writ petition, the

petitioner filed an application along with others for impleading them as

party to the said writ petition and the petitioner along with others were

impleaded as party in the writ petition. The writ petition was disposed

of by an order dated 5

th

December, 2025 by setting aside the order of

attachment of the immovable property of M/s Shree Hanuman Cotton

Mills Limited and all consequential proceedings related to the said

attachment, except the attachment of 1793 shares of the petitioner and

the petitioner’s wife. The petitioner being aggrieved and dissatisfied

with the order dated 5

th December, 2025 passed in WPA No. 17513 of

4

2022 has preferred an appeal being MAT No. 317 of 2026 and the same

is pending for disposal.

6. On 8

th April, 2022, after completion of inquiry/ investigation, the

respondent no. 2 had filed the prosecution complaint in connection

with ML Case No. 09 of 2022 before the Learned Court of Special Judge

(CBI) Court No.1, Calcutta. On 19

th

November, 2024, the record of the

said case was transferred to the Court of Learned Special Judge, CBI

Court No. 4/ED Court. On 23

rd

September, 2022, the Adjudicating

Authority has passed an order by upholding the PAO dated 31

st

March,

2022, passed by the Joint Director of the respondent no.2.

7. Mr. Ayan Bhattacharjee, Learned Senior Advocate, representing the

petitioner submits that the wife of the petitioner has received a notice

dated 27

th

August, 2026 under Section 50 of the PMLA issued by the

respondent nos. 2 and 3 directing the wife of the petitioner to appear

before the respondent no. 2 on 31

st August, 2026. On receipt of the said

notice, the wife of the petitioner by an email dated 30

th August, 2026,

sought for time and the respondents directed her to appear before the

respondent on 7

th September, 2026. The wife of the petitioner again

prayed for time due to her illness.

8. On 2

nd September, 2026, the petitioner has also received similar notice

with the direction to appear before the respondent no.3 on 8

th

September, 2026 and the petitioner has also prayed for time by an

email dated 7

th

September, 2026.

5

9. Mr. Bhattacharjee submits that the respondents have issued the

notices to the petitioner and his wife in connection with pending PMLA

proceeding before the Learned Special Court being ML Case No. 11 of

2022 arising out of KLZO/05/2020. He submits that the respondents

have revived the investigation without any leave or order from the

Special Court wherein the trial of the case against the petitioner is

pending.

10. Mr. Bhattacharjee submits that issuance of notice by the investigating

agency during the pendency of trial and without any order from the

trial Court or any leave from the Court is without any jurisdiction. He

submits that the investigating agency already filed charge sheet after

completion of investigation and the petitioner has filed an application

for discharge and during hearing of the said discharge application, the

investigating agency has issued notice which is beyond their

jurisdiction.

11. Mr. Bhattacharjee submits that if the investigating agency intending to

investigate the matter further during pendency of trial before the

appropriate Court, the investigating agency ought to have taken leave

or permission from the Learned Court but in the case of the petitioner

without obtaining leave or any permission from the Trial Court has

issued notice which is not permissible under law.

12. Mr. Bhattacharjee submits that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court

while disposing of the writ petition being WPA No. 17513 of 2022 dated

6

5

th December, 2025, given liberty to the Enforcement Directorate from

initiating any further investigation against the petitioner and others in

due process of law in the event, the Enforcement Directorate is

otherwise so entitled in law but the respondents without taking any

leave or order from the Court where the trial is pending has initiated

further investigation.

13. Mr. Bhattacharjee in support of his case, has relied upon the

judgement in the case of Pramod Kumar and Others Vs. State of

Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in (2026) 5 SCC 308 and submits

that the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in the event the police or

investigating agency is of the opinion that further investigation is

necessary in any particular case to cull out complete facts and truth in

the case, it is binding upon them to file an appropriate application

before the Magistrate/ Court, without directing an order for further

investigation by themselves.

14. Mr. Bhattacharjee has relied upon the order passed by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the case of Bhupesh Kumar Baghel Vs. Union of

India and Others passed in Writ Petition(s) (Criminal) No(s). 301 of

2025 dated 11

th

August, 2025 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court

held that the further evidence can be brought on record with the prior

permission of the Court.

15. Mr. Arijit Chakraborty, Learned Advocate, representing the respondents

submits that the writ petitioner by filing the present writ petition

7

praying for stay of all proceedings of ML Case No. 11 of 2022 arising

out of ECIR No. KLZO/05/2020 dated 13

th February, 2020, pending

before the Learned Special Judge.

16. Mr. Chakraborty submits that in one hand the petitioner and his wife

after receipt of notice from the respondents herein for further

investigation requested for adjournment on the ground of their illness

and on the other hand, the petitioner and his wife taking time before

the Learned Special Court that they are appearing before the

respondent authorities in connection with the notice issued by the

Enforcement Directorate.

17. Mr. Chakraborty submits that as per Section 44(1) of the PMLA, there

is no requirement of any order or leave from Court for further

investigation by the Enforcement Directorate. He further referred to

Section 71 of the PMLA and submits that the provisions of the PMLA

are having overriding effect contain in any other law. He submits that

the last proviso of Section 193 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha

Sanhita, 2023, is not applicable under the PMLA.

18. Mr. Chakraborty in support of his submissions, has relied upon the

judgment in the case of Enforcement Directorate Vs. Debabrata

Halder reported in 2022 SCC OnLine Cal 4095 and submits that the

Co-ordinate Bench of this Court held that an investigating agency is not

required to pray for permission for further investigation of the case

8

which is settled principle of law and the same is prerogative of the

investigating agency.

19. Mr. Chakraborty submits that the said order was challenged before the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Debabrata Halder Vs.

Enforcement Directorate in Petition (s) for Special Leave to Appeal

(Crl.) No(s). 441 of 2023 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court without

interfering with the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this

Court has dismissed the Special Leave Petition by an order dated 25

th

January, 2023.

20. Mr. Chakraborty has relied upon the order passed by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the case of The Assistant Director Directorate of

Enforcement Vs. Gautam Kundu and Another in Special Leave to

Appeal (Crl.) No (s). 271 of 2024 dated 3

rd December, 2024 wherein

the issue was whether after filing of the complaint, the accused can be

called for interrogation or not for the purpose of recording their

statement under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act,

2002. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the High Court did not

take into consideration of the explanation (ii) to Section 44(1) of the

PMLA and set aside the order of the High Court.

21. The issue raised in the present writ petition whether the investigating

agency (Enforcement Directorate) can start further investigation during

pendency of the case before the Court without permission or leave of

the Criminal Court where the case is pending.

9

22. Section 193 of the Bharaitya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 provides:

“Report of police officer on completion of investigation”. The last proviso

of Section 193 provides that Provided that further investigation during

the trial may be conducted with the permission of the Court trying the

case and the same shall be completed within a period of ninety (90)

days which may be extended with the permission of the Court.

Under the said provision of BNSS, 2023, there is no bar for

conducting further investigation during trial but with the permission of

the Court.

23. The case involved in the present writ petition, initially, the CBI has

initiated a case on 30

th March, 2013 for commission of offences under

Section 120B/420/ 471 of the IPC with Section 13(2) read with Section

13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, against the

petitioner and his family members. On completion of investigation,

charge sheet was also filed on 29

th December, 2013. On 13

th February,

2020, the Enforcement Directorate registered a case being ECIR No.

KLZO/05/2020, against the petitioner and others by treating the

charge sheet filed by the CBI as the scheduled offence. On completion

of investigation, the Enforcement Directorate has filed prosecution

complaint being ML Case No. 09 of 2022 before the Learned Special

Judge, CBI Court No. 1 Calcutta and subsequently the case is

transferred to the Court of Learned Special Judge, CBI Court No. 4/ED

Court Calcutta.

10

24. The petitioner has filed an application before the Trial Court for

discharge under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. Learned Judge by an order

No. 47 dated 29

th August, 2026, rejected the application filed by the

petitioner and others and fixed the case for consideration of charge on

18

th September, 2026.

25. On 27

th

August, 2026, the Enforcement Directorate has issued a notice

under Section 50 of the PMLA to Smt. Alka Kejriwal with the direction

to appear before the respondent no. 3 on 31

st

August, 2026 and on 2

nd

September, 2026, a notice under Section 50 of the PMLA was issued to

the petitioner to appear before the respondent no. 3 on 8

th

September,

2026 to give evidence and to produce documents.

26. Section 44 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, reads as

follows:

“44. Offences triable by Special Courts.

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),

(a) an offence punishable under section 4 and

any scheduled offence connected to the offence

under that section shall be triable by the Special

Court constituted for the area in which the offence

has been committed :-

Provided that the Special Court, trying a

scheduled offence before the commencement of this

Act, shall continue to try such scheduled offence; or

(b) a Special Court may, [***] upon a complaint

made by an authority authorised in this behalf

under this Act take [cognizance of offence under

section 3, without the accused being committed to it

for trial].

11

[Provided that after conclusion of investigation,

if no offence of money laundering is made out

requiring filing of such complaint, the said authority

shall submit a closure report before the Special

Court; or]

(c) if the court which has taken cognizance of

the scheduled offence is other than the Special

Court which has taken cognizance of the complaint

of the offence of money-laundering under sub-

clause (b), it shall, on an application by the

authority authorised to file a complaint under this

Act, commit the case relating to the scheduled

offence to the Special Court and the Special Court

shall, on receipt of such case proceed to deal with it

from the stage at which it is committed.

(d) a Special Court while trying the scheduled

offence or the offence of money-laundering shall

hold trial in accordance with the provisions of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), as it

applies to a trial before a Court of Session.

Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is

clarified that,—

(i) the jurisdiction of the Special Court while

dealing with the offence under this Act, during

investigation, enquiry or trial under this Act, shall

not be dependent upon any orders passed in

respect of the scheduled offence, and the trial of

both sets of offences by the same court shall not be

construed as joint trial;

(ii) the complaint shall be deemed to include

any subsequent complaint in respect of further

investigation that may be conducted to bring any

further evidence, oral or documentary, against any

accused person involved in respect of the offence,

for which complaint has already been filed,

whether named in the original complaint or not.

(2) Nothing contained in this section shall be

deemed to affect the special powers of the High

Court regarding bail under section 439 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) and the

High Court may exercise such powers including the

power under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of that

section as if the reference to “Magistrate” in that

12

section includes also a reference to a “Special

Court” designated under section 43.”

27. Section 44(1) begins with non–abstante clause. The Hon’ble Supreme

Court while upholding constitutional validity of the Explanation to

Section 44 of the PMLA, has clearly recognized that further

investigation is a statutory and continuing power of the authorized

agency and that the Explanation is an enabling provision intended to

ensure that no offender of money laundering escapes prosecution

merely because a complaint has already been filed.

28. It is settled proposition of law that trial commences only after framing

of charges and not prior thereto. In the present case, it is admitted

position that charges have not yet framed, therefore, the trial has not

commenced. The statutory recognition of further investigation even

after filing of final report is well settled under Section 173(8) of the

Code of Criminal Procedure which has been consistently interpreted by

the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In the case of State of Andhra Pradesh

Vs. A.S. Peter reported in (2008) 2 SCC 383, the Hon’ble Supreme

Court held that:

“Indisputably, the law does not mandate

taking of prior permission from the Magistrate for

further investigation. Carrying out of the further

investigation even after filing of the charge sheet is

a statutory right of the police”.

29. The discretion between further investigation and re-investigation

equally settled. While re-investigation without leave of the Court is

impermissible, further investigation is expressly sanctioned by law.

13

This position was reaffirmed in the case of Vinay Tyagi Vs. Irshad Ali

reported in (2013) 5 SCC 762 , wherein it was held that further

investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.PC. is permissible even after

submission of the police report and that the report arising therefrom is

termed a supplementary report.

30. In the case of State of Tamilnadu Vs. Hemendhra Reddy & Anr.

reported in (2023) 16 SCC 779, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated

that even de hors a specific direction of the Court, further investigation

is permissible under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. The Three Judges Bench

judgment in the case of Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya Vs. State of

Gujarat & Anr. reported in (2019) 17 SCC 1 held that further

investigation can continue even after the Magistrate has taken

cognizance. There is no requirement for recalling or reviewing the order

accepting the final report and further investigation is merely a

continuation of the earlier investigation and does not attract the

principle of double jeopardy.

31. In the case of Debabrata Halder (supra), the Co-ordinate Bench of

this Court held that :

“30. The complaint filed by the prosecution

itself contained prayer for further investigation but

the learned Special Court observed that there was

no prayer for further investigation. It would be

apposite to state that an investigating agency is not

required to pray for permission for further

investigation of the case which is a settled principle

of law and the same is prerogative of the

investigating agency. The duty of the investigating

agency is to the extent of informing the Court which

14

the investigating agency in this case has done by

informing the Court in the complaint filed before it.”

The said judgment was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme

Court but the Hon’ble Court has inclined to interfere with the said

judgment and dismissed the SLP by an order dated 25

th January, 2023.

32. The petitioner has relied upon the judgment in the case of Pramod

Kumar (supra) but in the said case the Hon’ble Court has considered

only the provisions of Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure

and not Section 44 of the PMLA.

33. Similar issue was before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of

Bhupesh Kumar Baghel (supra) and in the said case the Hon’ble

Court by considering the Judgment in the case of Vijay Madanlal

Choudhary (supra), passed the following order:

“2. It is a matter of record that, with respect

to the interpretation of Section 44(1) of the

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, a three-

Judge Bench of this Court in Vijay Madanlal

Choudhary & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (2023)

12 SCC 1 in paragraph 263 has held as follows:

“263. Clause (i) of the Explanation

enunciates that the jurisdiction of the Special

Court while dealing with the offence being

tried under this Act, shall not be dependent

upon any orders passed in respect of the

scheduled offence, and the trial of both sets of

offences by the same court shall not be

construed as joint trials. This, in fact, is

reiteration of the earlier part of the same

section, which envisages that even though

both the trials may proceed before the same

Special Court, it must be tried separately as

per the provisions of the 1973 Code. Insofar

as clause (ii) of the Explanation, at the first

glance, it does give an impression that the

15

same is unconnected with the earlier part of

the section. However, on closer scrutiny of this

provision, it is noted that the same is only an

enabling provision permitting to take on record

material regarding further investigation

against any accused person involved in

respect of offence of money laundering for

which complaint has already been filed,

whether he has been named in the complaint

or not. Such a provision, in fact, is a

wholesome provision to ensure that no person

involved in the commission of offence of money

laundering must go unpunished. It is always

open to the authority authorised to seek

permission of the court during the trial of the

complaint in respect of which cognizance has

already been taken by the court to bring on

record further evidence which request can be

dealt with by the Special Court in accordance

with law keeping in mind the provisions of the

1973 Code as well. It is also open to the

authority authorised to file a fresh complaint

against the person who has not been named

as accused in the complaint already filed in

respect of same offence of money laundering,

including to request the court to proceed

against such other person appearing to be

guilty of offence under Section 319 of the 1973

Code, which otherwise would apply to such a

trial.”

3. To sum up the contention of the petitioner,

this Court has held that: (i) The authorities of the

Enforcement Directorate can bring on record further

evidence during the trial; (ii) the further evidence

can be brought on record with the prior permission

of the Court; and (iii) the Enforcement Directorate

can either file a fresh complaint or the Court can

proceed against such other person under Section

319 Cr.P.C. (now substituted by a new provision

under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,

2023).

4. There is no gainsaying if the Enforcement

Directorate or the authority has acted contrary to

the principles of law, which are explained by this

Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary, the aggrieved

person(s), including the petitioner, if so advised,

16

shall always be at liberty to approach the High

Court questioning such action of the authorities.

5. With the liberty aforesaid, the instant writ

petition is disposed of with pending application(s),

if any.”

34. Considering the above, this Court did not find any reasons to

interference with the further investigation initiated by the Enforcement

Directorate by issuing notice to the petitioner.

35. WPA No. 26283 of 2026 is dismissed.

Parties shall be entitled to act on the basis of a server copy of the

Judgment placed on the official website of the Court.

Urgent Xerox certified photocopies of this judgment, if applied for,

be given to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.

(Krishna Rao, J.)